Crowd control Bill proposes to auction property of event planner for denial of compensation to injured, dead
After backlash over the stampede that claimed the lives of 11 cricket fans outside Bengaluru's M. Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, the Karnataka government has proposed to make a new law for crowd control at events and venues of mass gathering.
The draft of the Bill said that the event planner is responsible for paying the compensation to the person injured and to the family member in case of a death. It proposes that the event planner's property will be auctioned by the government in case of non-payment of the compensation.
Draft Bills discussed by Cabinet
Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering) Bill, 2025
Karnataka Rohit Vemula Bill, 2025
Karnataka Misinformation, Fake News Prohibition Bill, 2025
Karnataka Hate Speech and Crime Prevention Bill, 2025
A draft of the Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering) Bill, 2025, was discussed in the State Cabinet meeting on Thursday. The draft Bill says, 'It is expedient to effectively manage and control crowds at sponsored events and venues of mass gathering pertaining to political rally, jatra, conference etc. in the State.' The content of the Bill is not finalised so far.
Exemption to religious events
However, the draft Bill has proposed to exclude 'jatra', 'rathotsava', 'pallakki utsava', 'teppada teru', 'urs', and other religious events pertaining to any religion, caste or creed.
It said that the organiser of the event has to apply to the jurisdictional police station with the details of the approximate number of participants. The jurisdictional police station might change the date, time or venue by giving the reasons, it said.
In case of violation of the law, the Bill said the event planner would be punished with imprisonment for a term which would be extended to three years or with a fine of up to ₹5 lakh or both.
What are the offences
Offences of event planners would be not seeking prior permission of the jurisdictional police, death or injury of participants, and stampede at the event. Aiding, abetting or other assistance for committing a crime at an event or venue, too, would be punished, the draft Bill said.
The event planner is responsible to pay the compensation to the person who is severely injured in the event, mass gathering pertaining to political rally, jatra, conference etc. or compensation to the family member of the deceased, it said.
The draft Bill proposed that if the event planner does not pay compensation, the government may collect the amount as arrears of land revenue. The event planner's property can be auctioned by the government.
The next Cabinet meeting would take a decision on this Bill and other Bills discussed, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H.K. Patil told reporters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Draft bill for T'gana gig workers' social security published
The Congress-led Telangana government has published a draft bill to provide social security and regulate the working conditions for gig workers—one of the political priorities for the party. The draft bill, named The Telangana Gig and Platform Workers (Registration, Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2025, proposes a 'Gig and Platform Workers Social Security and Welfare Fund', which will be financed by the government and the aggregators. Draft bill for T'gana gig workers' social security published The bill stipulates that an aggregator may terminate a gig worker only by giving valid reasons in writing and with prior notice of seven days. It says every aggregator or platform shall mandatorily make pay-out with no delay and must provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of the platform-based gig worker. The bill comes weeks after Lok Sabha's Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, described the condition of gig workers, who work without any social benefits, as 'modern day slavery' during a debate in Parliament. In 2023, Rajasthan's Ashok Gehlot government became the first administration to enact a law to provide social safety to gig workers. The Telangana bill says 'The State Government shall… constitute a Board to be known as the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Welfare Board.' This board 'shall, as and when necessary, notify general or sector specific social security and other benefits which shall be implemented by the Board as notified by the State Government.' Congress leader Jairam Ramesh tweeted that after Rajasthan and Karnataka, Telangana is the third state where legislation are being made on this issue. 'It is only Congress governments that have ensured justice and better working conditions for lakhs of gig workers. Workers' justice has been a crucial part of the Congress Party's and Rahul Gandhi ji's central vision - this bill is proof of that commitment.' During the 17th Lok Sabha, the standing committee on labour—then led by BJD (now BJP) lawmaker Bhartruhari Mahtab—had proposed a unique identity for all unorganized workers. The panel felt that the unorganised sector-which constitutes more than 90% of India's workforce—needs a unique ID to access targeted benefits. The bill says, 'An aggregator or platform may terminate a gig or a platform worker by following the principles of natural justice after due enquiry only by giving valid reason/s in writing and with prior notice of seven (07) days. However, in case a threat (physical or mental) is foreseen to the end consumer, the gig worker may be terminated immediately.' It added that 'Every aggregator / platform shall mandatorily make pay-out as per the contract with no delay in disbursal of pay. Reasonable working conditions. The aggregator must provide and maintain, as far as is reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of the platform-based Gig worker.' Based in Hyderabad, the board will be headed by the state's labour minister, a representative of the Union labour ministry, top-ranking state officials, four representatives each from gig workers and aggregators and two civil society members. The board will ensure registration of Gig and Platform workers, registration of aggregators or platforms, 'Set up a monitoring mechanism to certify that welfare fund fee is being duly collected' and 'Ensure implementation of general and specific social security schemes based on contributions made, as may be notified by the State Government and disburse the social security benefits to the Gig and Platform workers.' Under the proposed law, a Gig and Platform worker shall have the right to register with the government 'on being onboarded on any platform, irrespective of the duration of the work.' The workers will be provided a 'Unique ID applicable across all platforms, have access to general and specific social security schemes based on contributions made by them subject to minimum number of transactions/gig 12 work undertaken by the gig and platform worker with any aggregator or platforms in a quarter.'
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Safeguarding liberty: Lessons from the Emergency
On June 25, 1975, the then President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, issued a proclamation in exercise of powers under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India, declaring an Emergency on the ground of internal disturbances. A letter has been displayed in the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya in New Delhi, addressed by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, to the President on June 25, 1975, making an earnest request to him to issue a proclamation under Article 352(1) of the Constitution on the same day. It records that there is 'an imminent danger to the security of India being threatened by internal disturbance.' A draft of the proclamation was forwarded along with the letter with a request that 'such a proclamation should be issued tonight'. The letter records the assurance of the Prime Minister to the President that 'I shall mention the matter to the Cabinet first thing tomorrow morning.' The Prime Minister stated in the letter that she was 'condoning or permitting a departure from the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.' Accordingly, the then President issued the Proclamation that very night. The letter indicates that when the Emergency proclamation was issued, there was no cabinet recommendation for declaring the Emergency. Article 74(1) of the Constitution, as it stood before January 3, 1977, provided that the President should act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, and not the Prime Minister alone. Despite a slew of restrictions during the Emergency, acts of protest, though limited, emerged. (HT ARCHIVE) On July 22, 1975, a bill to amend the Constitution was introduced and was passed by Parliament. The bill became the Constitution (38th Amendment) Act, 1975. This amendment was a drastic one, as it barred judicial review of the proclamation of an Emergency by incorporating clause (5) into Article 352. The inclusion of clause (5) was a significant departure from the original constitutional provisions, as it effectively prevented the judiciary from reviewing the validity of the Emergency. Fortunately, clause (5) was deleted by the 44th amendment with effect from 20th June 1977, restoring the power of judicial review and reaffirming the principle of constitutional checks and balances. When the Emergency was declared, I had just completed my school education and had joined a junior college. If I recall correctly, due to the disconnection of the supply of electricity on the night of June 25, 1975, some of the leading newspapers in Delhi could not be published on June 26 in the morning. Some newspapers published evening editions on June 26, 1975. I still remember that on June 27,1975, newspapers carried headlines that prominent leaders Jay Prakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar, Ashok Mehta, Lal Krishna Advani and several other leaders as well as activists were put behind bars by the government by exercising the power of preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971 (the MISA). In addition to the arrest of the leaders, strict press censorship was imposed. An atmosphere of terror was created due to these events. However, notwithstanding the police raj during the emergency, there were people who protested. I remember that immediately on the proclamation of Emergency, one of the leading national newspapers adopted a novel way of symbolic protest by keeping the editorial column blank. Some activists began an underground movement to protest against the Emergency. Due to censorship, the citizens were deprived of knowing what was happening in our country. Some activists started distributing handbills containing the uncensored news. There were some protests in the form of satyagrahas. As the Constitution was subverted by introducing drastic amendments beginning with the 38th Amendment, a situation was created by the rulers that ensured there were no large-scale protests. The proclamation led to serious consequences. Immediately after the declaration of Emergency, many states imposed pre-censorship by exercising the powers under the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, as it stood then, conferred power on the President to declare that right to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and proceedings pending in any court for enforcement of the rights so mentioned, shall remain suspended for the period within which the proclamation of Emergency is in force. An order was made by the Hon'ble President on June 27, 1975, in exercise of the said power, declaring that the right of any person (including a foreigner) to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended. Even pending proceedings in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned fundamental rights were suspended. After about five months from the proclamation of Emergency, it was realised that a citizen could move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, on January 8, 1976, the President again exercised the power under Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution and declared that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 19 and all pending proceedings in any court for enforcement thereof, shall remain suspended during the proclamation of Emergency. Writ petitions seeking writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed in various high courts by the political leaders who were detained under the MISA. The defence taken by the government was that in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975, the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Article 14, 21 and 22 was suspended, and therefore, the habeas corpus petitions were not maintainable. There were high courts that were bold enough to take the view that, notwithstanding the Presidential Order, petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus were maintainable. These high courts were of Allahabad, Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan. Some other high courts took a contrary view and held that writ petitions seeking writ of Habeas Corpus were not maintainable. By a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced on April 28, 1976, in the case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, which showed the judiciary in poor light, the majority held that no person had locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before high court for writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order or direction to enforce the right of personal liberty of a person detained under MISA on the ground that the detention or the continued detention is for any reason not under or in compliance with MISA or is otherwise illegal or mala fide. As a result, a large number of detainees who were illegally detained were deprived of their remedies under the Constitution. There was a famous dissent in the said case by justice HR Khanna, who held that Article 21 cannot be considered the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. He held that notwithstanding the Presidential Order of June 27, 1975, maintainability of the habeas corpus petitions to question the legality of the preventive detention orders was not affected. Justice HR Khanna had to pay a considerable price for the dissent. He was superseded, and a judge junior to him was appointed as the Chief Justice of India. This led to justice Khanna's resignation. This decision considerably damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court. It lost an excellent opportunity to give a clear and loud signal to the rulers that it will always uphold liberty at any cost. Unfortunately, the majority decision continued to hold the field for more than 40 years till it was overturned on 24th August 2017 in KS Puttaswamy's case by a larger bench. Apart from justice some great judges fearlessly upheld the rights of individuals before and after the decision of the Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. A significant judgment of the Bombay high court was before the verdict in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. It was by justice Vimal Dalal, who was heading a bench of the Bombay high court in the case of Bhanudas Krishna Gawde v. KG Paranjpe. This case arose out of a petition for habeas corpus filed by a detenu who was preventively detained under MISA. A very strong objection was raised based on the presidential declaration dated June 27, 1975, under Clause (1) of Article 359. Before justice Vimal Dalal, the counsel for the detainee stated that certain grounds based on violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution were waived. Still, the respondent raised an objection that the proceedings of the writ petition, based on the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21, which were pending on June 27, 1975, stood suspended and cannot be revived by such concessions made by the counsel for the petitioners. Justice Vimal Dalal held that this argument was of no substance. Interestingly, he observed that 'what is suspended is not dead'. Then came an argument on behalf of the State that the petitioner does not have any legal right which he could enforce by writ in the nature of Mandamus, other than the right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Shockingly, the state government also argued that if the conditions of the detention order contained a clause stating that detainees were not allowed to eat any food, it still could not be challenged before the court by way of a petition under Article 226, so long as the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975 was operational. The proclamation of Emergency emboldened the state counsel to make this shocking submission. Justice Vimal Dalal rejected the argument by holding that 'It is beyond doubt that by a writ of Mandamus the court can not only compel the performance of a statutory duty, but can also compel public authorities to forbear from acting in violation or breach of a statute……..' Justice Vimal Dalal did not stop there, and he declared that if a detainee's liberty has been restricted in contravention of or in derogation from the law under which they were detained, the high court can issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Another bold decision came on October 9, 1975, by justice C.S. Dharmadhikari of the Bombay high court; while heading a division bench, he decided a case of Krishna Madaorao Ghatate and Anr. v. The Union of India and others. This was again a petition for habeas corpus to challenge the order of preventive detention under MISA. After referring to the Presidential Order of June 27, 1975, justice Dharmadhikari held that an inference cannot be drawn that a person is not entitled to approach the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of habeas corpus. Justice Dharmadhikari proceeded to hold that 'even during the period of Emergency, absolute immunity cannot be claimed from the process of the court if the order is not supported by any valid legislation or a legal sanction…' Even post the decision of ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, a very important decision was pronounced by the Bombay high court on December 7, 1976 in the case of Shridhar Mahadeo Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra by justice V.D. Tulzapurkar. The petition was filed by the managing trustee of a very famous Marathi weekly, Sadhana. It was late Pandurang Sadashiv Sane, affectionately known as Sane Guruji, a freedom fighter, socialist activist, and a staunch follower of Mahatma Gandhi, who founded the Marathi weekly Sadhana. He had always championed the cause of personal liberty. Even during the Emergency, certain articles were published in the weekly criticising the proclamation of Emergency. As a result, eight different orders were passed by the State of Maharashtra under Rule 47 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. Under the said orders, issues of the weekly were proscribed and forfeited to the government on the ground that they contained prejudicial reports. Writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the penalty of proscription and forfeiture of 11 issues of the weekly. The bench, headed by justice Tulzapurkar, dealt with the Presidential Order dated January 8, 1976, which declared that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of rights conferred by Article 19 would remain suspended. The state made an argument that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was suspended and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Justice Tulzapurkar referred to the majority opinion delivered by justice in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, and held that criminal prosecution has been regarded as falling outside the purview of the Presidential Order of January 8, 1976. Ultimately, he held that, 'In our view, the petitions for challenging the levy of penalties by way of proscription and forfeiture of publications or by way of demand and forfeiture or security deposit or by way of closure of the press whereat such publications have been printed, would stand on the same footing as defending a criminal prosecution and cannot be regarded as any attempt at enforcement of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.' Justice Tulzapurkar entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeded to set aside the impugned orders of proscription and forfeiture of the weekly magazine. By judicial craftsmanship, although remedies to enforce freedom of speech and expression were suspended, justice Tulzapurkar granted relief to the weekly, which was critical of the internal Emergency. Fifty years after the internal Emergency of 1975, we must salute those fearless judges. We will always fondly remember justice H.R. Khanna, who fearlessly upheld the rights of the citizens during the dark days of the Emergency. When he did that, he fully knew that he was writing a dissenting opinion at the cost of inviting his supersession. These judges were true heroes. After the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, an emergency cannot be declared on the grounds of 'internal emergency'. But that does not mean that there is no threat to the ideals and institutions under the Constitution. The Emergency taught us tough lessons. These lessons emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the necessity of a robust and independent judiciary, and the risks associated with unchecked executive power. Eventually, the citizens taught a lesson to the leaders in power who were responsible for declaring the emergency. After the Emergency proclamation was withdrawn, various political parties with differing ideologies came together to form the Janata Party. In the elections held in the first half of 1977, the voters ensured that the ruling party was defeated. This was the first defeat of the party in power, thirty years after India became independent. This part of the history serves as a glaring example of the power of the people in a democracy and their ability to effect change. Dr. Ambedkar had warned the citizens of India in his last speech on November 25, 1949 before the Constituent Assembly that the success or failure of our Constitution depends on them. He placed a burden on the citizens to protect the Constitution, the institutions established by it, and the ideals enshrined in it. Dr. Ambedkar stated with great emphasis that bhakti, or hero worship, is a sure way to degradation and eventual dictatorship. Unfortunately, we, the people of India, have been ignoring this warning given by the father of the Constitution. The Emergency of 1975 showed how the Constitution itself could be misused to curtail fundamental rights. As we reflect on this darkest chapter in the history of independent India, we must protect, at any cost, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the institutions created by the Constitution, and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. There is always a tendency on the part of every party in power and the executive to attempt to curtail the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which include the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to liberty under Article 21. This can be done even without the proclamation of an Emergency. Apart from the duty of citizens to protect the Constitution, the judicial fraternity, comprising judges and lawyers, bears a greater responsibility to safeguard the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and its ideals. (Justice Abhay S Oka is a former judge of the Supreme Court. The views expressed are personal)
India Today
15 hours ago
- India Today
How does Indus treaty suspension benefit India? Ministers to explain to public
The central government has decided to launch a public outreach programme to explain how the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan will benefit the general public, sources said on Monday. Senior Union ministers are expected to directly engage with people, particularly in northern states where future river water usage is expected to be decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty was one of several punitive measures taken by New Delhi against Islamabad following the April 22 terrorist attack in Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Water Resources Minister CR Patil, and Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav are among the Cabinet members who have been tasked with leading this initiative, sources added. The government is reportedly working on a long-term strategy to make better use of the Indus River waters. This includes the construction of a 160-kilometre canal connecting the Chenab river with the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej river systems. Additionally, a nearly 13-kilometre tunnel is planned to link the Indus with other rivers and canals, enabling water to be transported from Jammu and Kashmir to Punjab, Haryana, and government aims to connect the Indus waters to Rajasthan's Sri Ganganagar within three years. For this, the existing 13 canal systems across Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan will be to the government, this will not only increase water availability in these regions but also allow India to utilise surplus water for irrigation and power ministers will reach out to residents in all regions expected to benefit from the increased water supply and assure them that the BJP government's decision will help avert water shortages in the years ahead. A wide-ranging public outreach campaign will be conducted in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan to communicate this Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan. It allocates control of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, with specific provisions allowing limited use of each other's allocated rivers.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Pakistan#India-Pakistan
